Filed 8 / 27 / 21 In re D.D. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re D

. D

. , A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law

. 2d Juv. No. B3 10083 ( Juv . Ct. No. 20JV00217 ) (San ta Barbara County)

SAN TA BARBARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S

. D

. ,

Defendant and Appellant

.

S

. D

. , paternal grand mother (Grand mother ) of infant D.D

., appeal s an order of the juvenile court denying he r request for placement pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section2

361.3

. 1 We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying placement and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL HISTORY
D

. D

. (Father) and A

. M

. (Mother) are the parents of

new born D.D. At birth, the infant had positive blood and urine
tests fo r marijuana, amphetamines, methadone, and heroin. The infant also suffered from drug withdrawal symptoms and was
admitted to the hos pital’s neonatal intensive care unit. Mother, after awakening from giving birth, asked if the infant tested positive for heroin. On May 29, 2020, the juvenile court issued a protective custody warrant for the infant. Santa Barbara County Department of S ocial Services (DSS ) filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging that the new born had suffered or was at ris k of serious physical harm. (§ 300, subd. (b).) DSS also alleged that Mother and Father had criminal histories for drug and theft
crimes. The D SS detention report states that Mother has three

o lder children who are no longer in her custody and care, including a child who also tested positive for methadone at birth

. F ollowing a detention hearing, the court ordered the infant detained and placed t he child’s temporary care and custody with
DSS

. In researching family placement, a DSS social worker spoke with a paternal aunt who reported that Gran dmother and her parents (Great

- G randparents) have a history of illegal drug use, including methamphetam ine. The aunt de scribed the family
as “toxic.”

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3 DSS filed a jurisdiction and disposition report prior to the
combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The report recommended that Mother and Father be bypassed for family reunification services pursua nt to sec tion 361.5, subdivision (b)(13).
F ollowing the infant’ s release from the hospital

, DSS placed
the child with a foster

- prospective adoptive family. Mother later
informed a DSS social worker that Grandmother recently was asked to leave her family home by Great

- Grandparents because Grandmother was under the influence of methamphetamine. Grandmother reportedly stated that she would not stop using illegal drugs. The paternal aunt also informed a DSS social worker that the “whole family has a histor y of drug abuse.” On August 25, 2020, Mother and Father rested on jurisdiction and submitted to DSS ’s recommendation regarding disposition. The juvenile court sustained the allegations of the dependency petition, bypassed family reunification services to Mother and Father, and set a permanent plan he aring for December 15, 2020.

Grandmother’s Requests for Placement Approximately one month following the infant’s birth,
Grandmother asked regarding placement. DSS informed Grandmother, however, that placeme nt would not be considered
until Mother and Father no lo nger lived with her. Grandmother
then offered to “get rid of them.” DSS instructed Grandmother to apply for placement after Mother and Father left her home ; the

agency then provided Grandmother with follow

- up contact information.
Mother and Father eventually move d from Grandmother’s
and Great

- G randparents’ home

, and on November 10, 2020,4

Grandmother received Resource Family Approval. The family home was clean, well

- maintained, and furnished. Grand mother
visited the infant monthly and demonstrated care giving abilit ies. On December 11, 2020, four days before the scheduled permanent plan hearing, Grandmother filed a trial brief regarding placement

. Grandmother indicated that her home
with Great

- Gran dparents had been approve d

. The juvenile court then continued the contested permanent plan hearing date until January 7, 2021, and ordered that the placement request be
determin ed then

. Prior to the permanent plan hearing, DSS filed a section
366.26 re port recommending that the juvenile court terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights and select adoption as the permanent plan. The section 366.26 report also discussed G rand mother’s

reque st for placement

. DSS speci fically discussed the
enumerated f

actors set forth in section 361.3 regarding relative placement. Many of the section 361.3 factors were positive, favoring placement, i.e., Mother and Father no longer lived with Grandmother, Grandmother’s three monthly visits with the
infant were affectio nate and appropriate, and Grandmother intended to provide adoption permanency. Other factors , however, were negative, i.e., Mother and the paternal aunt reported that Grandmother recently used methamphetamine, Mother believed that the foster

- adoptive
hom e was in her child’s best interests, Grandmother left the family home due to a reported conflict with Great

- G randparents regarding drug use, and Grandmother tended to minimize Mother’s and Father’s illegal drug use. Grandmot her reported5

that she accident a lly consumed methamphetamine when it was surreptitiously placed in her coffee at a fast

- food restaurant. In sum, DSS considered the section 361.3 factors and
recommended that the infant remain in its present foster home
because plac ement with G rand mothe r would not be in the
infant ’s best interests. On January 11, 2021, the juvenile court held a combined placement/section 366. 2 6 hearing. The DSS social worker testified that reports of Grandmother’s drug use and conflicts
with Great

- Grandparents were co ncerning. DSS was also
concerned that Grandmother would not draw boundaries with Mother and Father regarding their drug use and visitation requests. Grandmother testified and denied recent drug use

, conflict with Great

- Grandparents , or temporary move

- out s . She admitted that she applied f or resource family approval on August 28, 2020, one week after the court bypassed family reunification
services. Grandmother conceded that a DSS social worker
i nterviewed her “for two days.” Mother testified that she no w supported placement with Grandmother because Grandmother would allow visitation if Mother ceased drug use. Following argument by the parties, the juvenile court
denied G rand mother’s request for placement. T he court decided
that DSS performed a sufficie nt assessment and that the paternal aunt’s statements to DSS and the hospital personnel regarding illicit drug use by Grandmother were persuasive. The court also stated that it was not impressed with Mother’s testimony and that she mistakenly believe d tha t she would reunite with the infant. Moreover, the court admitted that it was

“ struck by the fact that these parents have had significant drug issues and, for some period of time, [ have been] living with6

[Grandmother and Great

- Grandparents].” Following i ts decision regarding placement, the court then found by clear and convincing evidence that it was likely infant D.D. would be adopted, and it terminated parental rights.
Grand mother appe al s this order , asserting that she was not given a fair chance at r elative placement

. 2
DISCUSSION
Grand mother contend s that the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her req uest for placement. She asserts that
the DSS investigation was inadequate because DSS did no t require her to drug

- test or otherwise verif y the paternal aunt’s
claims of family drug use

. Gr andmother adds that she has fully compl ied with the placement application, she has taken many hours of approved parent education training, and Mother and Father now support placement of the infant with he r. She also faults the court’s oral ruling as an ins ufficient explanation of the
infant’s best interests

, suggesting that the court did not exercise its independent judgment

. The juvenile court possesses sound discretion regarding relative placement. ( I n re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295,
318 .) When a relative requests placement, the law requires that the relatives be assessed and considered favorably, subject to the court’s consideration of the best interests of the child, among other things. ( Id. at p. 320.) Although the law provides that relatives are entitled to preferential consideration, there is no

2 Mother and Father separately appealed the juvenile court’s order. Through their respective attorneys, Mother and Father filed appellate briefs pursuant to In re Phoenix H. ( 2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. Accordingly, we dismissed the appeals.7

evidentiary presumption that placement with a relative is in a child’s best interests. ( Ibid. ) Section 361.3, subdivision (a) (1)

- (8) sets fort h the factors regarding relative placement. The “first and foremost” of the factors, however, is the best interests of the child, including special physical, psychological, educational, medical, or emotional needs. ( In re Maria Q. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 5 77, 592.)
Here DSS an alyzed each of the section 361.3, subdivision (a) factors in its report. Facto rs opposing placement with
G rand mother included the relative information that she had used methamphetamine and had conflict with Great

- Grandparents regardi ng drug use. Grandmother had also tolerated Mother’s and Father’s long

- standing drug addictions during their residence with her. Grandmother had applied for placement after reunification services had been bypassed and no change of placement of the child was being considered. Delay in assessing Grandmother’s request for placement arose in part from her delay in removing Mother and Father from her home. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying
G rand mother’s placement request. In ruling, t he court referred

to the DSS reports and the testimony at the hearing, as well as the statutory fact or s of section 361.3, subdivision (a)

, which were discussed in the report and during oral argument . ( Ross v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 899, 913.) The court considered and applied the placement factors and exercised its independent judgment concerning the request for placement. ( In re Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708, 719.)8 DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

YEGAN , J.

PERREN , J.9 Arthur A. Garcia, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

M. Jude Egan for Defendant and Appellant. Michael C. Ghizzoni, County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein, Deputy, for Plaintiff and Res pondent.